Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 820821 OF 2009
P. Rajagopal & Ors. Etc. .....Appellants
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu .....Respondent
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 2009
AND
Criminal Appeal Nos. 554555 of 2019
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 92619262 of 2015)
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 92619262 of 2015.
2. The judgment dated 19.03.2009 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos. 668669 of 2004
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2019.06.29
11:30:17 IST
Reason:
is in question in these appeals. The appellants herein have been
convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under
1
Sections 365 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “the
IPC”).
3. The brief facts leading to these appeals are as under:
Accused No. 1, the proprietor of a chain of hotels (Saravana
Bhavan) allegedly had the illegal intention of taking PW1
Jeevajothi, (aged about 21 years at the time of commission of the
offence) as his third wife, even though his second wife was still
alive and Jeevajothi was married. The family of PW1 had been
acquainted with Accused No. 1 since 1994, and he had even
given a managerial job to the father of PW1 in one of his hotels.
PW2 is the mother of PW1. Their family hailed from Thethakudi
village near Vedaranyam, and had come to Chennai and settled
there after selling all their properties at Thethakudi and clearing
all debts. They had come to Chennai with about Rs.4.5 Lakhs,
which they deposited with Accused No. 1, who gave them an
interest of Rs.6,0007,000/ per month on the same. PW1
(Jeevajothi), a Hindu, fell in love and married Prince
Santhakumar, who was a Christian, much to the disapprobation
of the family of PW1. Even after the marriage of PW1 with
Santhakumar, Accused No. 1 displayed a munificent attitude
2
towards PW1 and her parents, liberally presenting expensive
birthday gifts to PW1, paying her hospital bills, etc. He also
helped them monetarily and logistically in setting up their travel
agency in Chennai. He even used to interfere in the personal
affairs of PW1 and used to tell her false stories about her
husband Santhakumar, and advised her to abstain from sexual
relations with Santhakumar. However, PW1 did not pay any
heed to Accused No. 1 and continued to live happily with her
husband. Moreover, she did not have any love or affection
towards Accused No. 1. On 28.09.2001, Accused No. 1 came to
the house of PW1 and Santhakumar along with PW1’s parents
and started shouting at PW1 for not listening to him. Accused
No. 1 gave an ultimatum of two days to Santhakumar to sever all
his relationships with PW1. However, the relationship between
PW1 and her husband remained unaffected. Even so, being
agitated by the attitude of Accused No. 1, PW1 and her husband
decided to move to a place unknown to Accused No.1.
4. However, they did not get an opportunity to do so. On
01.10.2001, the other accused, i.e., Accused Nos. 2 to 11, who
were the aides of Accused No. 1, surrounded the house of PW1.
3
A few of the accused broke open the lock of their house and
thereafter, by grabbing the arm of PW1, who was present outside
the house along with her husband, dragged her into an
Ambassador car, marked M.O. 2, bearing Registration No. TN 22
5202. The accused also forced her husband to enter the same car
and got her family members into the car as well, saying that they
had instructions from Accused No. 1 to bring all of them before
him. Having brought another Ambassador car, M.O. 1, bearing
Registration No. TN 09 T 3224, and a twowheeler, they followed
the car in which PW1 and her family members were sitting, who
were taken to the house of Accused No.14 Chandrasekaran,
situated at Ashok Nagar, which was used as a godown for the
hotel of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 1, who was present there,
assaulted Santhakumar and caused Accused Nos. 2 to 9 to
assault him too. PW1 pleaded for mercy at the feet of Accused
No. 1, which Santhakumar tried to stop by lifting her from the
ground. Angered by the act of Santhakumar trying to touch
PW1, Accused No. 1 further assaulted Santhakumar, and ordered
his henchmen to confine him in another room and to beat him
up. In the meantime, PW1 was pressurized by Accused Nos. 1
and 14 to abandon Santhakumar and to marry Accused No. 1.
4
Later that day, both PW1 and her husband along with their
family were released at the orders of Accused No. 1, who gave one
week’s time to Santhakumar to leave PW1 and reside elsewhere.
Although the unlawful detention of PW1 and her husband thus
came to an end, they remained under the constant surveillance of
Accused No. 1 and his men. However, on the pretext of attending
a felicitation function arranged for Accused No. 1, PW1
accompanied by her husband went to the office of the City Police
Commissioner, Chennai and lodged a complaint (first
information) Ext. P1, on 12.10.2001 and the matter was referred
to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 13.10.2001 with a
direction to conduct a proper enquiry and take necessary action
in accordance with law. Ultimately, the said complaint went to
the jurisdictional Police Station on 09.11.2001, on which day the
first information was registered. However, it reached the
jurisdictional Magistrate only on 15.11.2001.
5. Charges were framed against the 14 accused in the
following manner: against Accused No. 1 for the offences
punishable under Section 109 read with Section 366, Section
109 read with Section 323 and Section 323 of the IPC; against
5
Accused Nos. 2 to 13 for the offences punishable under Sections
364, 366 and 323 of the IPC; and against Accused No. 14 for the
offences punishable under Sections 109 read with Section 506 of
the IPC.
On evaluation of the material on record, the Trial Court
convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 9 and acquitted Accused Nos. 10 to
14. Accused No. 1 was convicted for the offences under Section
109 read with Section 364, Section 109 read with Section 366,
Section 352, and Section 109 read with Section 352 of the IPC.
Accused Nos. 2 to 9 were convicted under Sections 364, 366 and
352 of the IPC.
6. On appeal by the convicted accused, the High Court
affirmed the finding of guilt by the Trial Court but modified the
conviction of Accused No.1 from Section 109 read with Section
364 to Section 109 read with Section 365, and the conviction of
Accused Nos. 2 to 9 from Section 366 to Section 365. The High
Court maintained the conviction of Accused No. 1 under Section
109 read with Section 352 and that of Accused Nos. 2 to 9 under
Section 352, and acquitted them for the other offences. Accused
No. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
6
years and Accused Nos. 2 to 9 were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years. Hence, these appeals by
the convicted accused.
7. Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the
appellants submitted that the drivers of the two vehicles involved
in the incident of abduction (i.e. M.O. Nos. 1 and 2) were
acquitted by the Trial Court, as was Accused No. 14
Chandrasekaran, in whose house PW1 and her husband
Santhakumar were kept confined after abduction, and hence the
High Court was not justified in affirming the conviction of the
other accused. In fact, he asserted that these acquittals would
cause the entire case of abduction to collapse. He further argued
that there was an enormous delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. by
PW1, inasmuch as the alleged incident had taken place on
01.10.2001 and the complaint came to be lodged only on
12.10.2001, and that the F.I.R. was only registered on
09.11.2001, which delay was not explained by the prosecution
either. He also argued that the incident of abduction had not
occurred and that the averments made in the complaint were
false and concocted. Further, he stated that the explanation
7
regarding the delay in filing the FIR that PW1’s house was being
watched by Accused Nos. 2 to 9 may not be accepted in view of
the fact that she or her husband could have called the police
using a phone, which was admittedly in their possession.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the State argued in
support of the judgments of the Courts below.
8. Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution
in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report
because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the
prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the
Court will decide the matter on merits without giving much
importance to such delay. The Court is duty bound to determine
whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the
facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned
if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive
for implicating the accused falsely. [See Apren Joseph v. State
, (1973) 3 SCC 114; v. ,
of Kerala Mukesh State (NCT of Delhi)
(2017) 6 SCC 1].
In the matter on hand, the entire family of PW1 was at the
mercy of Accused No. 1, who was very rich and influential.
8
Accused No.1 acted as a benefactor to the family and had helped
them financially and otherwise on multiple occasions. Under
such circumstances, PW1 might have been reluctant to lodge a
complaint immediately after the occurrence of the said incident,
especially when Accused No. 1 had employed his henchmen to
keep the house and movements of PW1 and her family under
surveillance. Moreover, no material has been brought to our
notice by the defence to prove that the delay in filing the F.I.R.
was with the intention of false implication. Thus, the explanation
given by PW1 for the delay remains untainted.
In our considered opinion, looking at the totality of the facts
and circumstances, the Trial Court and the High Court were
justified in condoning the delay and in concluding that the said
delay was not vital to the case of the prosecution.
9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution mainly relied
upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2. By the time the evidence
could be recorded for the matter on hand, Santhakumar, the
husband of PW1, was murdered. Therefore, the prosecution did
not have the opportunity to adduce his evidence and
consequently we do not have the benefit of the same. However,
9
ample material has been brought on record to prove that the first
accused used to unduly favour PW1 and her family, and showed
unwanted personal attention to PW1. Accused No. 1 tried to
taint Santhakumar’s image in the eyes of PW1, and also used to
threaten Santhakumar with dire consequences if he did not keep
away from PW1. The evidence of PW5, who is the brother of the
second wife of Accused No. 1, reveals that Accused No.1 had
taken one Kruthiga (sister of PW5) as his second wife using the
same measures and tactics that he was using against PW1. The
courts have mainly relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to
conclude that Accused Nos. 2 to 9 had abducted Santhakumar
and PW1 upon the instructions of Accused No. 1. Though the
Trial Court and the High Court have taken pains to assess the
material on record meticulously, in order to satisfy our
conscience, we have reevaluated the evidence of these two
important witnesses in entirety.
10. To prove the crime, as mentioned supra, the most important
testimony would be that of PW1, as she was also abducted along
with Santhakumar and was confined in the house of Accused No.
14 by the accused. At the risk of repetition, we would like to
10
reiterate a few important circumstances as deposed by PW1.
PW1 has deposed in detail about how Accused No. 1 hoped to
marry her and unduly favoured her and her family. For instance,
she deposed that when she was admitted in a hospital due to
some illness, Accused No. 1 forcibly made her shift to another
hospital under the pretext of better treatment, and even gave her
a mobile phone to contact him in case she needed anything.
It is amply clear from the deposition of PW1 that Accused
No. 1 even tried to convince PW1 that her husband Santhakumar
was infected with HIV and had other health issues, in a bid to
discourage her from having sexual relations with her husband.
He also came to the house of PW1 and proposed to her to live
with him as his third wife, and used to coerce Santhakumar to
desert PW1 and reside elsewhere, so that he could marry PW1.
On 28.09.2001, Accused No. 1 gave an ultimatum of two days to
Santhakumar to give his reply, and when such reply was not
made, Accused No. 1 instigated the other accused to abduct
Santhakumar. PW1 specifically deposed that Accused No. 3 had
forced her into a white Ambassador car bearing No. 5202 (being
M.O. 2) by grabbing her hand, along with Shanthakumar. PW1’s
11
parents and younger brother were also made to get into the car.
Thereafter, PW1 and her husband were taken to a hotel godown
owned by Accused No. 14, where Accused No. 1 was also present.
She further deposed in detail about how Santhakumar was
confined and assaulted by Accused No. 1 and the other accused,
and also about the threats by Accused No. 1 that he would kill
Santhakumar in case he did not leave PW1. She also explained
the delay in lodging the complaint by stating that since she and
her husband were being continuously watched by Accused No.1’s
henchmen, they could not lodge the complaint on time and
ultimately, under the pretext of attending a felicitation function,
they managed to go to the office of the City Commissioner of
Police, Chennai, and lodged the said complaint. Though PW1
was crossexamined at length by the defence, the same did not
yield any positive result in favour of the defence in respect of the
incident of abduction in question.
On going through the evidence of PW1 in its entirety, we
concur with the opinion rendered by the courts below that her
evidence appears to be natural, consistent, probable and reliable.
Her evidence remains unimpeached on material particulars. PW1
12
has given the details of the incident in question and we do not
find any major contradiction in her evidence so as to disbelieve
her testimony.
11. The deposition of PW2, the mother of PW1, is also in
consonance with the evidence of PW1. She deposed as to how
Accused No. 1 had the intention to marry PW1 and how he was
suspiciously benevolent to her and her family. She has deposed
meticulously and in detail about the favours shown by Accused
No. 1. She has also deposed that PW1 was upset about such
behaviour, and about the interference of Accused No. 1 in her
personal matters. Subsequently, she also came to know about
the evil designs of Accused No. 1, inasmuch as Accused No. 1
went on to threaten PW1 with the murder of her husband. She
deposed about how on the date of the offence, PW1, her husband
and the parents of PW1 (i.e. PW2 herself and her husband) were
called to the house of PW1 and how, thereafter, her daughter and
soninlaw were forced to get into a car, in which she along with
her husband and son also sat, on being asked to do so by
Accused No. 6. She also stated that they were taken away to the
house of Accused No. 14, where Accused No. 1 and the other
13
accused assaulted Santhakumar. In the crossexamination, PW2
admitted that she had taken financial help from Accused No. 1
and told her daughter that Accused No. 1 was doing favours for
the family just for her sake. Although PW2 was crossexamined
at length, her evidence also could not be discredited in respect of
material particulars by the defence. Minor variations in the
evidence of PW1 and PW2, if any, are not directly connected to
the crime of abduction itself, and are hence inconsequential.
12. On the whole, we find the evidence of PW1 and PW2
consistent, cogent and reliable, and do not find any artificiality in
the evidence, as rightly concluded by both the Courts below. In
our considered opinion, the Trial Court and the High Court were
justified in relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Though the
prosecution has let in the evidence of certain other witnesses, the
same may not be of much relevance to decide this appeal.
However, it has to be noted that the other witnesses arrayed by
the prosecution appear to have contributed their share in
upholding and corroborating the stand of the prosecution in their
respective areas. Moreover, the Trial Court and the High Court
have evaluated the entire evidence on record, including that of
14
PW1 and PW2, while coming to their conclusion. We do not find
any illegality in the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and the
High Court, inasmuch as the reasons are based on a just
appreciation of the evidence on record.
13. We are also of the opinion that the mere acquittal of the
drivers and Accused No. 14 would not erode the ample evidence
against Accused Nos. 1 to 9, who actively participated in the
crime of abduction by forcibly taking PW1 and Santhakumar to
the house of Accused No. 14. The offence of abduction
commenced from the time they were forced to board the car, and
continued till the time they were released from captivity later that
day.
The Trial Court and the High Court may have acquitted the
drivers and Accused No. 14 by giving them the benefit of doubt,
but this cannot be made the sole basis to doubt the case of the
prosecution in all other respects. We find that the entire evidence
has been considered in its proper perspective to rightly conclude
that the appellants had in fact abducted PW1 and Santhakumar.
In light of the aforementioned discussion and perusal of the
material on record, we do not deem it a fit case for setting aside
15
the judgments of the Courts below. The conviction and sentence
as granted is hereby confirmed, and the appeals are thus
dismissed.
..........................................J.
(N.V. Ramana)
............................................J.
(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)
………………………………………..J.
(Indira Banerjee)
New Delhi;
March 29, 2019.
16